ID: aiam5487

"Dear Mr. Blous: This responds to your letter asking about how thi agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. In your letter, you described your product as a bag holder for the interior of vehicles, designed to attach to the head restraint and hang on the back side of the front seats. Based on the illustration you provided, the bag holder appears to be a 12 inch flexible strap that attaches to the head restraint, with a 'rigid plastic' hook at the end from which plastic grocery bags are suspended. The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations that apply directly to your product, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled 'Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment.' By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA's authority to issue these regulations is based on title 49, section 30102(7) of the U.S. Code (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act), the relevant part of which defines the term 'motor vehicle equipment' as: (A) any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured, (B) any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of a system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to a motor vehicle . . . (emphasis added). Although you appear to recognize the applicability of our regulations, based on your characterization of your product as 'after market equipment,' allow me to explain how NHTSA determines whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory under the U.S. Code. The agency applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used, by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an 'accessory' and thus subject to the provisions of the U.S. Code. Your bag holder appears to be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under our regulations. It appears to be designed specifically to fit in motor vehicles using the head restraints, meaning that a substantial portion of its expected use relates to motor vehicle operation. The bag holder would typically be purchased and used by ordinary users of motor vehicles (i.e., anyone using the vehicle). While your bag holder is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. However, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Although no standards apply directly to the bag holder, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. NHTSA has issued a safety standard (Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact) that requires, among other things, that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with that standard. If your bag holder were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the rigid plastic hook) were to be struck by the occupant's head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We do not know how big or how 'rigid' the hook is, but it is something of which you should be aware. Other legal requirements could apply depending on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the bag holder installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201. In addition, although we recognize it would be unlikely that your product would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, section 30122(b) of title 49 prohibits those commercial businesses from 'knowingly mak ing inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .' For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the bag holder were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this 'make inoperative' prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The 'make inoperative' prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your bag holder in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2342

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt: This is in response to your letter of June 14, 1976, forwarding petition from Gulf + Western Manufacturing Company for reconsideration of the bumper standard recently issued as Part 581 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations.; A number of requests for our view on the Gulf + Western petition hav been forwarded by members of Congress who have received copies of the Gulf + Western petition accompanied by a letter from Mr. James A. Graham.; It is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's policy t issue a notice of action taken on petitions for reconsideration within 120 days after publication of the final rule, unless action within that time is impracticable. Since the agency is currently in the process of considering the petitions received, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time on the remarks made by Gulf + Western.; I assure you that Gulf + Western's comments and the informatio contained in all of the petitions for reconsideration will receive thorough consideration. The agency's response to the petitions will be published in the *Federal Register*.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0685

Dear Mr. Milby:#This is in reply to your letter of April 19 to Mr Schneider asking for interpretations of the motor vehicle controls safety standard, Standard No. 101.#You have asked that we reconsider our earlier opinion that your heater gate valve is a 'heating and air conditioning system control' for purposes of Standard No. 101. We see no reason to modify our earlier view. A control, as you have described it, that allows hot engine water to flow through the heater cores is clearly a heating system control, requiring identification as such. Table I of Standard No. 101 allows you the option of choosing your own form of identification. Perhaps a legend such as 'Water Control' and a designation of 'Winter' and 'Summer' positions would clarify your intent that the valve not be used as a temperature control device. However, pursuant to paragraph S4.3 this control need not be illuminated, if, as appears likely, it does not direct air directly upon the windshield.#You have also asked if the cable- operated fresh air door whose function is to control the air that passes through the heater cores is also a 'heating and air conditioning control.' It appears that this control serves a function similar to that of the heater valve, and that identification is also required, with words or abbreviation at the manufacturer's option.#Finally, you ask if the defroster identification may be preceded by 'RH' and 'LH' to identify the right hand and left hand defroster systems respectively. The answer is yes, we have no objection to this form of identification.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1997

Dear Mr. Morton: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of April 28 1975, concerning tires used on pull brooms.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires fo vehicles other than passenger cars*, (copy enclosed), specifies labeling and performance requirements for all tires designated for use on pull brooms. This standard applies to all such tires manufactured on or after March 1, 1975. There is presently no requirement, however, that vehicles be equipped with tires conforming to the standard. the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has proposed and is considering the issuance of a new Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars*, which would require all new pull brooms manufactured after its effective date to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 119.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2712

I have received your November 8, 1977, memorandum questioning th applicability of the performance requirements in Section S5.4 of Standard No. 217 to knock-out rear windows. You suggest that these requirements may apply only to push-out windows, not knock- out windows.; It is our interpretation that the requirements of the standard apply t both push-out and knock-out windows. We realize that this may create some difficulty for purposes of conducting compliance testing since knock-out windows must be reinstalled in order to conduct subsequent tests upon them. Nonetheless, the window should be required to comply with the standard.; Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

ID: aiam3800

Dear Mr. Barbie: This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.; The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards i determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5203

Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response to your letter of April 13, 1993 requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206 as it affects the rear doors of ambulances that your company manufactures. I apologize for the delay in responding. You state that your ambulances have two rear doors, and that each has locking mechanisms that can be operated both from the outside and inside of the doors. Your specific question is whether you can eliminate the inside locking mechanism on one of the rear doors without violating Standard No. 206. The language in S4.1.3 of Standard No. 206 that you noted in your letter (i.e., 'Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.') refers to side doors, but not to rear doors. Thus, your company's ambulances need not be equipped with locking mechanisms on each rear door. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0001

ID: aiam4941

"Dear Mr. Conway: I have been asked to respond to your letter t Administrator Curry, in which you asked about the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, to van conversions and motor homes with raised roofs. In your letter, you suggested that the currently specified roof crush resistance test procedure is inappropriate for such vehicles because of their unique physical characteristics. Additionally, referring to the greater floor to roof height of a van conversion or motor home as compared to a typical passenger car, you questioned whether the five inch roof displacement pass/fail criteria are appropriate for these vehicles. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address these issues. As you know, on April 17, 1991, NHTSA published a final rule extending the application of Standard No. 216 to multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs), trucks and buses with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 (56 FR 15510). That rule requires that the roof of any such vehicles be moved not more than five inches when a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight is applied to either side of the forward edge of the vehicle's roof. This is the same test procedure specified for passenger cars, with one exception. For passenger cars, the standard specifies applying a force of one and a half times the vehicle's unloaded weight or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less. As indicated above, the alternative 5,000 pound crush force limit that applies for passenger cars was not adopted for light trucks, buses, and MPVs. During the rulemaking process that led to this extension of Standard No. 216, NHTSA received comments requesting that the agency consider modifying the roof crush resistance test procedure to accommodate the particular physical characteristics of some motor homes, vans and van conversions, including those with raised roofs. More specifically, some commenters including RVIA suggested that the specified test procedures could not be used to position the test device on some vehicles with raised roofs. Other commenters, especially Ford, questioned the need for a five-inch roof crush limitation for vehicles with full standing headroom and suggested that NHTSA consider relating the maximum roof crush requirement to the available occupant headroom. After carefully evaluating these comments, NHTSA concluded that, based upon the available information, the roof crush resistance test procedure was practicable, met the need for motor vehicle safety, and was appropriate for MPVs, trucks, and buses, if those vehicles had a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. The issues identified by the commenters were significant primarily for such vehicles with a GVWR of more than 6,000 pounds. NHTSA acknowledged that it was possible that there could be some light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that would experience the same problems with the specified roof crush resistance test procedure as larger vehicles would. However, the agency had no information showing that those difficulties would actually be experienced by particular light trucks with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less. See 56 FR 15514, April 17, 1991. In your letter, you raised the same issues that had previously been raised in these comments, that is, you suggested that the test device could not be positioned properly on vehicles with a raised roof and that the five inch crush displacement limit was inappropriate for vehicles with a raised roof. As was the case with those comments, your letter did not provide any specific information identifying particular vehicles with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less whose physical characteristics would cause it to experience some particular compliance difficulties or testing difficulties. If you have some information showing compliance or testing difficulties for actual light truck models with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less, we would appreciate it if you would forward that information to the agency. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of any compliance or testing difficulties for light trucks subject to the extended requirements of Standard No. 216. Absent such information, NHTSA has no basis for changing its previous conclusion about the specified test procedures and requirements. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2196

Dear Mr. James: This is in response to your letter of January 1, 1976, to Regiona Office V of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), concerning whether your company's spreader product must comply with the requirements of Federal motor vehicle Safety standards and regulations, particularly Standard No. 119, *New Pneumatic Tires*.; The NHTSA issues safety standards and regulations for 'motor vehicles. Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines a motor vehicle as a vehicle 'manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways.' Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work-performing nature, and, as such, their manufacturer contemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobil cranes, rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers that travel at a normal highway speed are examples in this area. These motor vehicles qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. On the basis of the information you have sent us your company's towed paver appears to be in this category of vehicles, and would therefore be considered a 'motor vehicle.'; There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicl classification despite their use on the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, *self-propelled* asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 mph and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. Your company's paver would not appear to qualify in this category of vehicles since, as a towed paver, it would travel at a speed greater than 20 mph, at least when moving between job sites. Consequently, your product must comply with the requirements of the Federal standards and regulations. Standard No. 119 does not directly impose any duty on you, because it applies to tires rather than vehicles. However, the NHTSA has recently issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (copy enclosed). This standard does require, effective September 1, 1976, that your vehicles be equipped with tires that conform to Standard No. 119 and are of sufficient load rating.; Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel